Primary Navigation

Solar Activity Report for 6/8/02

The CME mentioned in the report from 6/6 imppacted Earth s magnetosphere earlier today, but it pretty much turned out to be a non-event. It did kick up the

Message 1 of 4
, Jun 8, 2002

0 Attachment

The CME mentioned in the report from 6/6 imppacted Earth's
magnetosphere earlier today, but it pretty much turned out to be a
non-event. It did kick up the solar wind speed, but it had little
geomagnetic effect other than to briefly elevate the K index to the
active category. In general, things are quiet this evening. Coronal
hole generated solar wind gusts could begin arriving tommorow, which
could again cause some active geomagnetic conditions, although at this
time there is no aurora watch in effect. There are several sunspot
groups visible this evening, but none look as if they have any real
flare-generating potential.

Take a look please at 3/4/97 anomaly chart compared and contrasted
with the new one out for 6/7. It is worth the time. This is only a
few months before a 500 year El Nino. Ocean temperatures in general
were colder then. Why? Because the flaring cycle had just bottomed
out and Mt. Pinatubo had released huge SOx emissions into the air,
dropping phase change temperatures of cirrus clouds. Then the flaring
was increasing with the solar cycle and the SOx was washing out of
the air, and actually became part of the sulfur reducing ocean
biosphere.

The flaring distributed cirrus clouds without respect to ocean
currents, and some of this resulted in storms near equatorial
Americas, and Gaia feedback electrical insulation, and fingers of
warm anomalies, within those few months, were extending from the
equatorial American coasts.

So how did the Southern Oceans respond by SSTs (Sea Surface Temps)
then? Around the Southern Ocean, with a colder ocean the induction
against cirrus, as the circumpolar moves west to east, was not as
good--so cirrus heated up the Southern Ocean and SSTs became,
counterintuitively, warm anomaly. Furthermore, it was cold in the
oceans in general so that no state sized glaciers were braking off--
also resulting in warm anomalies. And the sun was starting to kick it
with the flaring and biological material from SOx added to the ocean
was responding as well.

Compare to the anomalies today--they are cold anomaly and state sized
bergs have been breaking off. What gives? Warmer oceans. That means,
electrically, induction will be strong and because this particular
current, the circumpolar, is west to east, it means cold anomalies.
It has been cold anomaly there for MONTHS. There, some of the
strongest sustained winds on earth occur, making it an almost
certainty that with these warm oceans the Southern Ocean will
continue to have cold surface ocean temps. These cold SSTs move
around the gyre in the Southern Pacific and bring a much greater
probability of La Nina. Indeed, historically FOUR MONTHS before El
Nino the Southern Ocean is warm anomaly.

The additional electrical feature that I am going to compare and
contrast between now and 3/4/97 is also not intuitive. That is,
during the spring of 1997 when rains did visit the equatorial
American Pacific shoreline and Gaia feedback those fingers of warm
anomalies you see, there was a triangle of cold SSTs mid-Pacific.
What is interesting about that? Well, when those cold anomalies moved
in the normal gyre movements (La Nada) soon those cold anomalies
where in the W. Pac. And they have a very peculiar impact
electrically. When they move over the gyres where the Coriolis turn
brings a directional change from east to west (enhancement) to west
to east (cirrus decreases), cold oceans bring WARM SSTS downflow!
Hence, as the gyre moved these cold anomalies, probably traced back
to low flaring and Mt Pinatubo (and/or other cyclic aspects), to the
W. Pacific they became makers of downflow warm anomalies--right into
the path of a budding potential El Nino. When you combined this with
what was occurring in the Southern Oceans, as well as the biosphere
along the equatrial coast--along, I might add, with the November 1997
diversion of the Yangtze, which would have further cooled the W. Pac,
ya got the bomb!

In marked contrast, today we have a very warm ocean in general. We
have a Southern Ocean, in contrast, with predictibly cold anomaly
SSTs and melting glacial ice there. This is constantly churning cold
anomalies into the gyres to be moved to the Eastern tropical Pacific.
The Yangtze is starting to recover and SSTs in the W. Pac are VERY
warm. That brings stronger induction patterns gyred around in the
Pacific, west to east, against cirrus, and further brings cold
anomalies. Further, while there are these short periods of warm
anomalies and rain associated with the flaring we have had, 2003 is
well to the down slope of flaring and Gaia has a tendency to rain
itself out.

In short, there is NO chance of El Nino this winter. None.

fredwx

From the Autralian Meteorolgy site: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current They are saying ... if we only consider the SOI and search the data base for

They are saying ..."if we only consider the SOI and search the data
base for years with similar trends to the current year, 7 of the best
10 matches were El Niño years and 3 weren't.".....

I wonder which 3 years they are talking about? It would be
interesting to compare them to the current situation.

--- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
> No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just
caused
> an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as
> the SOI is no longer negitive:
>
> http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATCPEP2.html
>
> Go here to see the second storm, Boris.
>
> http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/index.html
>
> Note its monsoonal features and course north of the first E. Pac
> storm. I think of this like back EMF, for you EEs out there.
>
> ++++++++++
>
>
> http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
>
> Take a look please at 3/4/97 anomaly chart compared and contrasted
> with the new one out for 6/7. It is worth the time. This is only a
> few months before a 500 year El Nino. Ocean temperatures in general
> were colder then. Why? Because the flaring cycle had just bottomed
> out and Mt. Pinatubo had released huge SOx emissions into the air,
> dropping phase change temperatures of cirrus clouds. Then the
flaring
> was increasing with the solar cycle and the SOx was washing out of
> the air, and actually became part of the sulfur reducing ocean
> biosphere.
>
> The flaring distributed cirrus clouds without respect to ocean
> currents, and some of this resulted in storms near equatorial
> Americas, and Gaia feedback electrical insulation, and fingers of
> warm anomalies, within those few months, were extending from the
> equatorial American coasts.
>
> So how did the Southern Oceans respond by SSTs (Sea Surface Temps)
> then? Around the Southern Ocean, with a colder ocean the induction
> against cirrus, as the circumpolar moves west to east, was not as
> good--so cirrus heated up the Southern Ocean and SSTs became,
> counterintuitively, warm anomaly. Furthermore, it was cold in the
> oceans in general so that no state sized glaciers were braking off--
> also resulting in warm anomalies. And the sun was starting to kick
it
> with the flaring and biological material from SOx added to the
ocean
> was responding as well.
>
> Compare to the anomalies today--they are cold anomaly and state
sized
> bergs have been breaking off. What gives? Warmer oceans. That
means,
> electrically, induction will be strong and because this particular
> current, the circumpolar, is west to east, it means cold anomalies.
> It has been cold anomaly there for MONTHS. There, some of the
> strongest sustained winds on earth occur, making it an almost
> certainty that with these warm oceans the Southern Ocean will
> continue to have cold surface ocean temps. These cold SSTs move
> around the gyre in the Southern Pacific and bring a much greater
> probability of La Nina. Indeed, historically FOUR MONTHS before El
> Nino the Southern Ocean is warm anomaly.
>
> The additional electrical feature that I am going to compare and
> contrast between now and 3/4/97 is also not intuitive. That is,
> during the spring of 1997 when rains did visit the equatorial
> American Pacific shoreline and Gaia feedback those fingers of warm
> anomalies you see, there was a triangle of cold SSTs mid-Pacific.
> What is interesting about that? Well, when those cold anomalies
moved
> in the normal gyre movements (La Nada) soon those cold anomalies
> where in the W. Pac. And they have a very peculiar impact
> electrically. When they move over the gyres where the Coriolis turn
> brings a directional change from east to west (enhancement) to west
> to east (cirrus decreases), cold oceans bring WARM SSTS downflow!
> Hence, as the gyre moved these cold anomalies, probably traced back
> to low flaring and Mt Pinatubo (and/or other cyclic aspects), to
the
> W. Pacific they became makers of downflow warm anomalies--right
into
> the path of a budding potential El Nino. When you combined this
with
> what was occurring in the Southern Oceans, as well as the biosphere
> along the equatrial coast--along, I might add, with the November
1997
> diversion of the Yangtze, which would have further cooled the W.
Pac,
> ya got the bomb!
>
> In marked contrast, today we have a very warm ocean in general. We
> have a Southern Ocean, in contrast, with predictibly cold anomaly
> SSTs and melting glacial ice there. This is constantly churning
cold
> anomalies into the gyres to be moved to the Eastern tropical
Pacific.
> The Yangtze is starting to recover and SSTs in the W. Pac are VERY
> warm. That brings stronger induction patterns gyred around in the
> Pacific, west to east, against cirrus, and further brings cold
> anomalies. Further, while there are these short periods of warm
> anomalies and rain associated with the flaring we have had, 2003 is
> well to the down slope of flaring and Gaia has a tendency to rain
> itself out.
>
> In short, there is NO chance of El Nino this winter. None.

pawnfart

Yes but the SST anomalies from the sats only starts mid 96. There is only one ENSO in that. ... best

Message 4 of 4
, Jun 9, 2002

0 Attachment

Yes but the SST anomalies from the sats only starts mid 96. There is
only one ENSO in that.

--- In methanehydrateclub@y..., fredwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> From the Autralian Meteorolgy site:
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current
>
> They are saying ..."if we only consider the SOI and search the data
> base for years with similar trends to the current year, 7 of the
best
> 10 matches were El Niño years and 3 weren't.".....
>
> I wonder which 3 years they are talking about? It would be
> interesting to compare them to the current situation.
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.